Boris keeps the important traffic flowing

"Judith Smith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 May 2009 16:43:38 +0100, Paul Luton
wrote:

snip



Look like the sensible thing would be to remove the island as it is
causing confusion.

Paul


I don't think that there is necessarily anything wrong with the
crossing - more as I said the kid had not been taught to use it
properly.

I suggest he had not been told that if he was caught on the island he
needed to press the button to change the lights again and he should
not continue crossing once his "permission" light had gone out.

Hardly the motorist's fault.


I take it that when you were taught to drive, if ever, there was never any
mention of anticipation.

On Thu, 14 May 2009 17:24:27 +0100, "Toby Sleigh"
wrote:


"Judith Smith" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 14 May 2009 16:43:38 +0100, Paul Luton
wrote:

snip



Look like the sensible thing would be to remove the island as it is
causing confusion.

Paul


I don't think that there is necessarily anything wrong with the
crossing - more as I said the kid had not been taught to use it
properly.

I suggest he had not been told that if he was caught on the island he
needed to press the button to change the lights again and he should
not continue crossing once his "permission" light had gone out.

Hardly the motorist's fault.


I take it that when you were taught to drive, if ever, there was never any
mention of anticipation.


Yes - and if you approached a junction/crossing and the light was
green for you , then you could reasonably assume that any pedestrian
knew how to control the lights and would wait until they had priority.


--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."

Judith Smith wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 17:24:27 +0100, "Toby Sleigh"
wrote:

"Judith Smith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 May 2009 16:43:38 +0100, Paul Luton
wrote:

snip


Look like the sensible thing would be to remove the island as it is
causing confusion.

Paul

I don't think that there is necessarily anything wrong with the
crossing - more as I said the kid had not been taught to use it
properly.

I suggest he had not been told that if he was caught on the island he
needed to press the button to change the lights again and he should
not continue crossing once his "permission" light had gone out.

Hardly the motorist's fault.

I take it that when you were taught to drive, if ever, there was never any
mention of anticipation.


Yes - and if you approached a junction/crossing and the light was
green for you , then you could reasonably assume that any pedestrian
knew how to control the lights and would wait until they had priority.

Maybe you need to be a cyclist to know that, just because you have
priority you should not assume that another person (especially a child)
is not likely to proceed as if you weren't there.

Roger Thorpe

Judith Smith wrote:
That'll be the bit where it says :

"Miguel waited until he saw a green man, crossed to the island in the
middle of the road,"


and as you well know - if there is an island it will be most likely
two separate crossings.

I know you're a troll Judith, but at least try to make the effort:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&so...272.29,,0,3.31

http://tinyurl.com/pc5gbb

For those who don't have immediate access to a web browser, it's an
inline crossing: The school appears to be behind the church
immediately adjacent to this crossing, so it seems unlikely that the
article is referring to any other crossing on the Uxbridge Road.

Phil

--
http://www.kantaka.co.uk/ .oOo. public key: http://www.kantaka.co.uk/gpg.txt

On Thu, 14 May 2009, Judith Smith wrote:

I don't think that there is necessarily anything wrong with the
crossing - more as I said the kid had not been taught to use it
properly.

I suggest he had not been told that if he was caught on the island he
needed to press the button to change the lights again and he should
not continue crossing once his "permission" light had gone out.

Hardly the motorist's fault.
- but hey - lets's give a motorist a bashing

The crossing goes straight across - it's a single crossing one side of
the road to the other, from kerb to kerb. The Highway code is
explicit on that point.

"197 Pelican crossings which go straight across the road are one
crossing, even when there is a central island. You MUST wait for
pedestrians who are crossing from the other side of the island."

The child was on the crossing when the amber light started flashing.
The highway code is explicitly clear that the motorist MUST give way
to the pedestrian in that situation.

"196 Signal-controlled crossings Pelican crossings. These are
signal-controlled crossings where flashing amber follows the red
'Stop' light. You MUST stop when the red light shows. When the amber
light is flashing, you MUST give way to any pedestrians on the
crossing."

So the motorist was breaking the highway code, and was breaking the
law, and consequently ran over and injured a child who was behaving
entirely properly.

judith defends the motorist.

judith suggests that it is 'bashing' the motorist even to point out
that they are breaking the law.

At this point, any comment is superfluous, I think.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On May 13, 9:59*pm, Squashme wrote:

Third class citizens. Endanger and delay the peds so that the over-
privileged and important motorists (and the cyclists who do bother to
stop) don't get too frustrated.

Be honest: what is it that you're most bothered about? Pedestrians
being supposedly "endangered" or "delayed" (despite there being no
proper evidence of that), or motorists having it too easy and not
being bullied and impeded enough?

Someone who really cared about pedestrians, and didn't hate cars,
would try to think of measures which helped both pedestrians *and*
motorists, instead of simply moaning about anything which made things
easier for car drivers, and deliberately attempting to propagate the
false idea that you can't possibly help car drivers without making
things harder for pedestrians/cyclists, and vice versa.

Those who are anti-car rather than pro-cyclist are really showing
their true colours with their dislike of Boris compared to
Livingstone. The cyclist Boris has done more for cyclists than
Livingstone ever did, but because he doesn't hate cars like
Livingstone did, he was written off by Spindrift and the other
motorist-haters before he even got into City Hall. It's possibly the
most blatant example yet of the fake cycling advocates exposing their
true anti-car motives (and the fact that they really couldn't give a
*stuff* about cyclists) for all to see.

It's time the car-haters started telling the truth about what they
really want, instead of parasitising the cause of cycling. If their
agenda is so wonderful and worthwhile, why are they so ashamed about
being upfront about it?

On Thu, 14 May 2009 18:04:38 +0100, Phil Armstrong
wrote:

Judith Smith wrote:
That'll be the bit where it says :

"Miguel waited until he saw a green man, crossed to the island in the
middle of the road,"


and as you well know - if there is an island it will be most likely
two separate crossings.

I know you're a troll Judith, but at least try to make the effort:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&so...272.29,,0,3.31

http://tinyurl.com/pc5gbb



So you are saying that at that crossing if someone is crossing the
right hand side of the crossing ie they have not reached the central
island and your light is green that you must stop for the pedestrian
on the other side of the island.


This would certainly explain the circumstances where the car was
estimated to be doing thirty mph.

--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."

Squashme wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/q9tu6c

Toby Young:-
"My five-year-old daughter's best friend was run over last week. It
happened on the pelican crossing on Uxbridge Road, opposite St
Stephen's Primary School in Shepherd's Bush.

Miguel waited until he saw a green man, crossed to the island in the
middle of the road, then carried on walking, not realising that the
green man had started flashing. He was hit by a Ford Focus travelling
at 30mph.

Luckily, he wasn't badly hurt, but it is only a matter of time before
a child is killed at this crossing. Miguel is the third child from St
Stephen's to be hit there this year.

In each case, the cause has been the same: a child has started to
cross, only to be marooned in the middle of the road when the green
man has started to flash.

That's nonsense. There's no difference in the legal status of a
light-controlled crossing at red with a pedestrian on it or at amber and red
with a pedestrian on it.

On May 14, 6:04*pm, Phil Armstrong wrote:

I know you're a troll Judith

....using the usual URC definition of "troll": someone who dares to
hold a different point of view on transport-related politics to the
points of view held by members of the clique, and not only that, but
they have the temerity to express those points of view out loud, *and*
on the clique's own newsgroup! It's almost as if such "trolls"
believe that this newsgroup isn't owned by anybody, and absolutely
anyone has just as much of a right to post as anyone else.

On 14 May 2009 17:37:06 GMT, Ian Smith wrote:

On Thu, 14 May 2009, Judith Smith wrote:

I don't think that there is necessarily anything wrong with the
crossing - more as I said the kid had not been taught to use it
properly.

I suggest he had not been told that if he was caught on the island he
needed to press the button to change the lights again and he should
not continue crossing once his "permission" light had gone out.

Hardly the motorist's fault.
- but hey - lets's give a motorist a bashing

The crossing goes straight across - it's a single crossing one side of
the road to the other, from kerb to kerb. The Highway code is
explicit on that point.

"197 Pelican crossings which go straight across the road are one
crossing, even when there is a central island. You MUST wait for
pedestrians who are crossing from the other side of the island."

yes - when the lights are red or amber - as it says in the other
paragraph.

You MUST stop for them if the lights are red or amber only.
If the lights are green you do not have to stop.

So you are a hundred yards away from a pelican crossing - it has a
central island; someone presses the button on the right hand side of
the crossing - they get the green light and start to cross. Their
lights start to flash to show that the lights are going to change -
your light starts to flash at amber - you are twenty yards away as
your light goes to green

When you get to the crossing you notice the small child who is stood
on the central reservation and who has now pressed the button on the
reservation in order to cross the part of the road on which you are
traveling.

Your light is green.

So you are saying that rather than wait for the stop signal you MUST
stop and hence encourage the child to cross the road.
What about that car (or cyclist) coming up on your inside (if it is
two lane) - do they suddenly stop as well?

Yes of course that's the way it is intended to work - silly old me.





--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."